DES MOINES, Iowa -- Potential 2012 presidential candidate Newt Gingrich defended his shifting positions on whether the U.S. military should have intervened in Libya on Saturday, saying that he was responding to President Obamas changing views.

The fact is that on each day I was on television I was responding to where the president was that day, Gingrich told a gathering of conservative Iowans. And so obviously there were contradictions.

Its true, he added, I was trying to follow Obama.

The former Republican House Speaker originally expressed support for the enforcement of a no-fly zone using American military force, but earlier this week he appeared to flip-flop, calling President Obamas decision to get involved an act of amateur opportunism.

His explanation: If you had asked, should we jump in the lake? I would have said no. Once we jumped in the lake I said, swim as fast as you can.

The former Republican House Speaker originally expressed support for the enforcement of a no-fly zone using American military force, but earlier this week he appeared to flip-flop, calling President Obamas decision to get involved an act of amateur opportunism.

And emphasized that a true leader would have responded to the Libyan situation by increasing subsidies for ethanol and "whatever it is they produce in New Hampshire".

Intense, isn’t she? Wonder who he’ll take up with next? How does he get these women?

He is obviously going for the republican Obama vote. He’s got that constituency all sewn up. Add it to the middle aged “I’ve always wanted to make out with a guy on tv” women and he is really going places.

"As far as Gingrich goes someone needs to tell him his time has come and gone. He needs to go away NOW."

There's a lot of things Gingrich is good at, but leadership isn't one of them. I think there would be a place for him in the next Republican administration - so long as he's following directives, not giving them.

What Sarah said in response to Bozo's meddling in Libya, was something along the lines of, "We should be in it to win it. If there's any doubt, we should stay out."

Bozo (of course) can't make up his mind whether we ought to destroy Kaddafi, or whether we should help the UN or NATO do something. No one knows what the hell the mission objective is there, or where it will lead.

I don't think Sarah has said what she would have done with Libya as CIC. For what it's worth, neither have any of the other potential candidates for 2012, with the exception of Newt, who put his right foot in his mouth, then switched to his left foot.

33
posted on 03/26/2011 11:23:58 AM PDT
by Windflier
(To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)

"The mission objectives and the political objectives would be clear under Palin."

And what would those political objectives be, exactly?

The fact of the matter is it's becoming clear - and many people warned well beforehand - that the "rebels" were and are supported by al-Qaeda. Put another way, our "no-fly" zone is giving aid, comfort and cover to some of the same men who have been fighting US service member in Afghanistan & Iraq for the last 9-years.

There was never and is not now a "mission" in this Libyan civil war for the US military. And, to anyone with even a passing understanding of the history of Libya the last 50-years, this would have been self-evident. Gaddafi has claimed - correctly as it turns out - that the Cyrenaican tribes have been working with al-Qaeda for years. In fact, Gaddafi has been a partner with the us, providing intelligence.

Calling for and implementing a no-fly zone was a huge tactical blunder on our mistake - and it's a blunder shared by Obama, Gingrich and Palin.

Isn’t the default answer to “should the U.S. military attack or start a war or get involved in a war” ..... no ?

Then, would not a POTUS gather advisors and analyze the situation to come up with self-defense-related reasons why U.S. military involvement is necessary ?

I think politicians have gotten so used to hearing “gotta support the troops” and so used to having troops overseas now for 10 years, that they knee-jerk just start sputtering about winning, coalitions, missions, etc., even if aroused from a sound sleep and have NO idea what war is being talked about or even if they’re dreaming or not.

I think because of the success and effectiveness of our military, ten years of war, and the fact that we don’t see uniformed war on our shores, it’s easy to think of war as some sort of team sport instead of a life and death struggle that could involve them directly. That’s where our military families have experience others don’t since they wind up seeing the effects of war on themselves.

The POTUS is best that rises above politics, which they can, politically, because it’s the last step in a political career. The political reality of war for our Republic that the founders wisely set up was that the President can be nimble and take emergency response actions to attacks on us in undeclared wars as they are Commander-In-Chief. But ultimately they are held accountable by a Congress which ultimately must hash out the pros and cons based on the political situation in the U.S. Of course, the Constitution designs our government in this way to limit the possibility of entering into wars on a whim.

One roadblock to politics accurately reflecting the will of the people is the Democratic party; it has to expunge anti-American radicals and any ties to them from within itself. If it can’t, perhaps in the coming years we will see them marginalized, and the current Republican party become a replacement for them, and a new party become the part of the “right” made up of Tea Party and conservatives of various stripes. If all true conservatives left the Republican party and joined such a new party, the Republican party would be marginalized unless it won over a lot of Democrats. Just food for thought; certainly the Tea Party effect is just starting to work on Congress and the Republican party is still moving to the right in their talking points, at least.

IMHO, in terms of the Libya war, and islam in general, I think that the most concerning threat to the U.S. is actually still communism. I think islam is merely a big skunk thrown in our face but not the real attack. Mind you, since we can’t entirely defeat islam with muslims living within our borders, it’s one mighty big, smelly skunk.

...the "rebels" were and are supported by al-Qaeda. Put another way, our "no-fly" zone is giving aid, comfort and cover to some of the same men who have been fighting US service member in Afghanistan & Iraq for the last 9-years.

Alright, but when did this fact become apparent to all concerned - especially those without access to the latest intelligence briefings?

I first began hearing talk that the 'rebels' were in actual fact, Al Qaeda, only days ago. Prior to that, and while the situation was developing, the so-called uprising in Libya looked for all the world like a real citizen rebellion.

Of course, these revelations are embarrassing to every national level figure who's put their reputation on the line by making public comment about the Libya situation, but the administration has been in a better position to know the real facts on the ground, than anyone else. If anyone is to be excoriated for choosing the wrong response, it's them.

50
posted on 03/26/2011 12:06:55 PM PDT
by Windflier
(To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.